David Brooks Calls Palin a "Cancer" on the Party: Too Far?

David Brooks Calls Palin a "Cancer" on the Party: Too Far?

Oh I took stalkerazzi pics at both conventions, but the one person I made a point to strike up a conversation and get a legitimate picture with? Mr. David Brooks. I find his sensibly reasonable pragmatism electric. Somehow I trust those who I feel call it like they see it over how they think people think they should see it. Which is why his recent column about Palin not being ready to be president didn't strike me as particularly counter-conservative, just his honest assessment.

Yesterday however, Brooks extended that thesis, in decidedly stronger terms. At the launch of the Atlantic's new look, Brooks said that Palin:

Represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

He said much, much more yesterday from his predictions to the final outcome (Obama by nine points even though he's a "mediocre" Senator) to whether experience matters (decidedly, yes) and honestly, it's all worth a read. What do you make of his commentary on what Palin represents about the Republican party? Is "drill baby, drill" replacing more. . . subtly thought out dialog? Did he go too far?

"Is no one at all concerned about Obama's ties to someone who said on 9/11 that he wished that they would've dropped more bombs?"
>>> What is your source here, please? Are you referring to an article about Ayers published on Sept 11th, 2001 that quotes his book? Clearly he wasn't referring to Sept. 11th with that quote.
"I fear Obama might just let them come on in and perhaps hire Bill Ayers as the head of the FBI."
>>> Ayers will not be the head of the FBI under Obama.

Is no one at all concerned about Obama's ties to someone who said on 9/11 that he wished that they would've dropped more bombs? Hello, I am not saying McCain is wonderful. At this point, I think he is basically throwing the election by some of the completely insane things he is doing. But Obama scares me. Everyone keeps saying that this isn't a big deal, but do you all not remember 9/11? How could you want someone leading this country who I don't think can keep us safe at all? That is the one plus about McCain. I feel he would do his best to keep our country safe from terrorism. I fear Obama might just let them come on in and perhaps hire Bill Ayers as the head of the FBI. Wouldn't that be peachy? Obama is a smooth talker, I get that. McCain is spouting off nonsense. It would be nice if one of them came out and said that the CE0's of these banks were going to be carted off to jail and forced to pay restitution because they have made so much $$$ it is crazy and none of them are in any trouble at all. WTF? But neither candidate is saying that.

What kind of online vote choices are these? It's like getting a customer service survey that says "do you think my service was A. very good. B. Amazing. C. Orgasmically amazing.
How about E. "No. Brooks is absolutely right and this is not 'very complicated'. Sarah Palin IS a cancer on the Republican Party."
Sarah Palin is incurious, anti-intellectual, unqualified, extremist, and has a tendency to bend the truth way too frequently, even for a politician. (At least most politicians have the cerebral ability to lie artfully. She bumbles, uhms and ahs like a junior high kid who is trying to BS her way through a book report on an assignment she hasn't read.)
Worst of all is how dangerously unaware she is of her own limitations. I'm not even talking about basic humility (which she obviously doesn't possess), but she should have had the common decency and regard for her own country to decline the offer made. Instead, she probably viewed McCain's pick as an act of God.
I have a better grasp of economics and foreign policy and I would NEVER think that those qualify me to be president. I demand the best and the brightest as my leaders. Not someone I "can have a beer with" -- look where that moronic voting heuristic got us over the last 8 years.
Sarah Palin is a cancer on the Republican Party because she engages in the worst kind of divisive politics. She is completely oblivious to the destructive effects that shunning knowledge and pretending that she is "one of us joe-six packs" has on the electorate and the Conservative movement. She's a candidate running for the 2nd highest office in the nation in a time of dire crisis. Appeals to the commonality of experience of being a "hockey-mom" over and over and over again are woefully inadequate and so is the candidate who utters them.

coachluvr33- It's pretty simple - you can criticize American POLICY without hating all Americans THEMSELVES. It isn't unpatriotic to disagree with the policy decisions governmental officials makes sometimes or even to be angry about them.
As a matter of fact, our founding fathers wanted us to think for ourselves.
I do NOT think Obama is a savior, but please don't take quotes out of context. There are quite a few questionable ones I can quote back that McCain said DIRECTLY.
Like not knowing how many houses he owns?
And by the way, the citizenship thing is so old. Snopes.com has refuted it and McCain's own citizenship has been questioned too. Both men are valid citizens. There are enough real issues out there so you don't have to manufacture ones that have no validity.
And by the way, McCain and Obama are really not very different in policy, except for maybe, about 4 issues. Obama has run a cleaner campaign emotionally and financially, however, and I respect that.
But they are both CFR members (so was Clinton), both into imperialism, both high taxers, both support the bail out, neither supports gay marriage, both voted for the "Patriot" Act and again to expand it. Both supported funding the War in Iraq by borrowing money from China. (Yes, it's true. EVERY DAY THE WAR COSTS AMERICA $1Billion TO $3,000,000,000. And it is all either manufactured out of thin air by the Fed, thus making all of our dollars worth a bit less, or borrowed from CHINA or JAPAN.) Neither talks about fiscal responsibility and returning a free market economy to America, or bringing back the gold standard, or balancing the budget.

UnDave- Read Naomi Wolf's commentary on Palin. Yes, it is on Huffington, but it is educational. Palin has been selected, groomed, and quite possibly somewhat brain-washed by Rove himself.
Repetitively quoting Reagen, does not make her a return to the Conservatism of the 80s.
If you want genuinely conservatism, without the NEO-CON DEATH CULT, try RON PAUL.
A breath of fresh air compared to Palin. Not to mention that he's intelligent, has been warning about current economic policy for ages and is 100% right, highly moral, and hey, he actually answers the questions!

Yeah Jillness I don't get that contradiction for minute it's rather ridiculous to go out and root for making college education more accessible and then turn around and criticize an individual as being elitist for having one. These are the types of intellectually dishonest attacks that are twisting the electorates minds.

"The Republican party needs to remember what it was 24 years ago, and get back to that. We've strayed dangerously close to the socialistic tendencies of the far left, in an attempt to get the middle. It's not a good thing, and will be a disaster for this country."
So by that statement UnDave I take it you are dissatisfied with the selection of Sen. McCain as your party's nominee in the first place. I'm curious as to who you would like to see as the nominee.

"The Republican party needs to remember what it was 24 years ago, and get back to that. We've strayed dangerously close to the socialistic tendencies of the far left, in an attempt to get the middle. It's not a good thing, and will be a disaster for this country."So by that statement UnDave I take it you are dissatisfied with the selection of Sen. McCain as your party's nominee in the first place. I'm curious as to who you would like to see as the nominee.

>I think that the fact that someone who may not even be a U.S. citizen is running for president is a little sad people.
Do you mean McCain or Obama? Both have had their eligibility to be president questioned.

I think that the fact that someone who may not even be a U.S. citizen is running for president is a little sad people. How about that bar being lowered? And the fact that he frequented a church for 20 yrs where the reverend referred to the God D*** America several times. I really don't understand why ANYONE would want that man in charge of our country. Are you people so swayed by a smooth talker that you will believe whatever you are told by him? The messiah? You must be kidding. That is Jesus Christ, not Barack Hussein Obama. I am not saying McCain is perfect by any stretch. This country is in turmoil, and I don't see a way out unless someone takes on Wall Street and these two have been paid off by all $$$ made. Pray people pray.

"What it is is that she is actually OF the people"
What does that mean?
Is Obama not of the people?
Is McCain not of the people?
Is Biden not of the people?
When does a person suddenly get their "people" status removed?
You can not tell the quality of a person's character simply by where they came from.
That is prejudice.

"What it is is that she is actually OF the people"What does that mean?Is Obama not of the people?Is McCain not of the people?Is Biden not of the people?When does a person suddenly get their "people" status removed?You can not tell the quality of a person's character simply by where they came from. That is prejudice.

I think the idea that educational excellence is a BAD thing is not only cancerous for the party, it is cancerous for the nation. The ability to tell when your leaders are lying to you is the power of education. The more educated people are, the more the government is held accountable. Ignorance is exploitable.
I think her attitude towards people who have "elite" education is pretty destructive.

I think the idea that educational excellence is a BAD thing is not only cancerous for the party, it is cancerous for the nation. The ability to tell when your leaders are lying to you is the power of education. The more educated people are, the more the government is held accountable. Ignorance is exploitable. I think her attitude towards people who have "elite" education is pretty destructive.

He may not be a Republican in the sense of it's new incarnation, but that's what he checks off on his voter registration so that's what he is. I'm not one to doubt someones politically affiliations if they identify themselves as one thing or another. I may question how that person interprets what it is to be a Dem/Pub for instance I don't really think George W Bush has traditional republican views/r however that's the party he identifies with so for me to insist that he's not is not very wise.